As the Poll Numbers Drop…

It seems that there are endless numbers of polls out there that tell us whatever the talking heads want us to believe. I take them all with a grain of salt. So when the new poll numbers came out from Pew, I wasn’t surprised. I had already seen about 30 different polls claiming that Obama’s approval ratings were dropping. It brings to light an interesting conundrum for the far left in America (and remember I speak of the far left, not all the left). For they have been rubbing this last election cycle in the faces of conservatives and Republicans for quite a while now. So as we see the changes occurring in public opinion, what are we to make of it? I know there will be some out there who simply say the polls mean nothing. But those same folks sure thought the polls meant something 6 months ago. I was reading over at CNN and Jack Cafferty, someone I have a healthy respect for, offered some thoughts that I will share below. But I am interested to hear what everyone thinks on this subject.

We all know the history. The Republicans found themselves in a tough spot last fall. Bush had made things tough. It was easy to make him into the villain. He was the President. And he made quite a few mistakes. Despite popular liberal rhetoric, he didn’t make them alone. Democrats had as much to do with the issues we were facing as Republicans. But blaming the guy at the top was the easiest sell to an American public that won’t research to find the truth behind the matters and possibly won’t fully understand it if they do. So Democrats had one of the strongest election cycles I can remember in my lifetime. They took control of the House, the Senate, and of course, the Presidency. And even though the vast majority of those victories were by the slimmest of margins, in some cases literally a couple hundred votes, the far left claimed that they now had a mandate.

And this was bolstered by a sweeping victory by perhaps the best public speaker we have seen in history. I know some others rank fairly high. But Obama was certainly the best speaker in my lifetime. And to keep the record straight, Obama won with a decent margin. He won 28 states to McCain’s 22. He carried 53% of the popular vote (69 Million) to 46% for McCain (59 Million). A 10 Million person cushion. Nothing to sneeze at. But I submit to you that the greatest public speaker as a Presidential candidate in history went up against the worst run campaign I have seen. That he only won by 10 Million votes should almost be the butt of a bad joke. He should be ashamed he didn’t get 80% of the popular vote and all the states but Alaska and Arizona. Again the left claimed a landslide victory. I chuckled as I have seen a landslide victory before. And this wasn’t it. Ronald Reagan in 1984 won 49 states to Mondale’s 1. He got 59% of the popular vote to Mondale’s 40%. That was a landslide. This was a sound victory. But regardless, the left told the Republicans that their party is dead. They claimed a mandate to do whatever they like. Their mistake was that they actually believed it.

Cafferty’s article discussed the new Pew poll:

Why are Democrats’ and Obama’s approval ratings falling?

As the debate over health care rages on… the American people are increasingly souring on President Obama and the Democrats. A new poll shows the president’s approval rating at 51-percent — the lowest of his presidency and down from 61-percent two-months ago.

The Pew poll shows the Democratic Party now has a favorable rating of 49-percent… also down from 59-percent in April and 62-percent in January.

When it comes to the Republican Party — public opinion has remained steady all year at about 40-percent.

Meanwhile it looks like the American people aren’t buying into calls for bipartisanship. The poll shows 63-percent of those surveyed say the president and Republicans are not working together on important issues… that’s up from 50-percent who felt that way in June.

Although more people blame the Republicans than President Obama for this lack of co-operation, the poll shows a growing number are now faulting the president. 17-percent of Americans say Mr. Obama is to blame… that’s up from seven-percent who felt that way in February.

With health care eclipsing all else in Washington this summer — it seems as though the president and the Democrats are losing favor with the American people. It will be interesting to see what happens to these numbers if the Democrats decide to “go it alone” like we’ve been hearing.

So I started thinking about why the poll numbers have seen a steady decrease since he took office. And it isn’t just him, it is the Democratic party and the Congress have seen numbers dropping as well. But the President has lost 10 points in approval rating in the last two months. So the question that I am sure is driving Democrats nuts is “how can this be happening?” I imagine, although I won’t claim to speak for them, that they are quite willing to blame the fall in approval on mass hysteria being propagated by Rush and Beck and Hannity. Stupid people believing the stupid lies about death panels and killing grandma. I am guessing that will be the rationalization.

But I don’t think that is the case. Certainly those conservative talk shows and Fox News are having an impact. They basically have their style meter set to “Bash Obama” 99% of the time (although, as a listener, I do not believe that Beck falls into the same category as Limbaugh and Hannity. He is outrageous. He is also usually fairly accurate). But I think the Democrats failed to take into account the fact that the very reason they got to the results that they did was because they convinced moderate Republicans and Independent voters to go along on the “Yes We Can” train. And while I didn’t jump over there, I am an Independent voter. And I think that I can speak for why I, along with so many more Americans, are now registered Independent.

Let’s face it, there is nothing to be gained by being an Independent. In a general election we are all allowed to vote however we want to vote anyway. In fact, as an Independent, in some states you are put at a disadvantage. You cannot participate in the primaries of either major party. So why do people switch to putting that (I) beside their name? Because they are disgusted with whatever used to be beside their name and don’t feel the other side is any better. Independents are Independents because they are fed up with both parties. We have seen that both of the parties are completely full of bulldookey. We have watched them both play the blame game, when we could plainly see that they were both fairly equally at fault. We have watched them consolidate power in Washington at the detriment of the people. We have watched them play partisan games, refusing to support a good idea simply because the “other side” proposed it.

We have watched it all and finally said, “Screw ’em both.”

And while we all have our own little lean to the left or to the right, we clearly see through much of the Shenanigans that go on in Washington. Being able to see what Washington is up to has given us a clarity of vision that those who remain completely loyal to the extreme one way or the other simply cannot comprehend. I am willing to listen to and support an idea no matter where it comes from. And I am willing to call and idea dumb or assess it honestly whether from the left or the right (regardless of Ray calling me a liar). And in that way I am representative of the Independents, the group that I call the “middle” of American politics.

What happened last fall was a great speaker doing what he does best. And he convinced a lot of the people in the middle to come along on his journey. He promised “hope and change”, and I have to admit, that even to me, it was a convincing motto and something I truly hoped he meant. I recall on the night of November 4th, even after having voted for his opponent, watching his acceptance speech in awe and thinking, “if he really means what he is saying, he will be one of the best Presidents in my lifetime”. But I was skeptical, as all of you know.

And I think that is how all Independent voters felt. Whether they voted for him or against him. They inherently don’t trust politicians and they certainly don’t trust the two major parties. So they were skeptical but hopeful.

The last 6 months have thus far proven my skepticism to be accurate. An economic stimulus bill that was nothing more than a couple of decades worth of liberal wish lists and 9,000 of the earmarks Obama promised to eliminate. A bailout of the auto industry that included increased government meddling in private business. Unwavering support for the unions that funded him that resulted in bondholders getting the shaft in favor of union members. Government funding for an obviously partisan political group, ACORN. An attitude very early on that included his “I Won” statement after promising bipartisanship. Reversal of the successful Clinton Welfare Reforms, which will undo years of success and create a larger and more dependent lower class. And now a health care reform debate driven by an obvious agenda, not at all interested in actually making American’s lives better. “Hope and Change” showed itself to be nothing more that “More of the Same Washington bullshit”.

So now those in the middle of American politics are angry, and they feel like they were tricked. They can see through the games being played on both sides of the aisle. They had the highest hopes for something different. And they have been let down again. On some counts I blame Obama for promising things he had no intention of delivering on. But on the majority I simply chalk it up to the fact that even the greatest public speaker of our times has no ability to change what happens inside the beltway. The system is deep-rooted. I don’t trust Obama. But I do think he wants to do the right thing. I think his version of the right thing is severely misguided at times. But I think he wants to be good. But he lis learning quickly this is a dirty business. And the unfortunate truth is that he is stooping down to the level of Congress instead of forcing them to be better.

So, in my opinion, the drop in approval rating for Obama is simply the natural thing that has to happen. He is playing partisan politics. The threat exists now that the Democrats will try to use procedural tricks to force through a health care bill that the vast majority of Americans think is a bad bill. This is the Washington we all know far too well. And he is falling right in line in adapting to their practices instead of living up to the expectations that set for us. So Americans are turning away. And I have talked to many who have turned away completely. They figure if he wasn’t the real deal, there simply isn’t any further hope for Washington DC.

Obama had the approval ratings that he did based on the hope he inspired in “the middle” of American politics. He has proven to be not what he told the middle he would be. And that has resulted in many of them disapproving of his tenure so far. After all, remember that they see through the partisan games, that is why they became an Independent in the first place. And they se through what is going on in Congress and the White House as well. They won’t be so easily tricked again. And no matter what mandate the left felt it had, has evaporated. Their only mandate at this point is in their own minds. I am not sure it ever really existed outside of there in the first place.

So I am eager to see what all of you think. Why do you think that we are seeing the drops in Obama and Congress’ approval ratings? And lets avoid the rhetoric. I agree that their are things we are seeing which lend us to believe a form of fasciolism is what the left is currently seeking. But we have had some of those discussions already. Let’s leave that discussion for another day. How do you explain the drop in the the polls? Honest and thought out answers are what I am looking for.

Comments

During the campaign, Obama believers and Independents seemed to fill in the blanks, meaning, they heard what they wanted to hear. They were fed up with the business as usual of Washington DC. They wanted to believe that a black man could just as a good a job as a white one. So they glossed over all the stuff that didn’t fit the wish list, and hoped for the best. Only a small percentage of his followers got what they wanted because there isn’t a person on Earth who can be all things to all people. It was bound to happen…

And this is indeed the one thing you can absolutely slam Bush for. He placed his position as president above his party and it’s core beliefs causing a catastrophic failure come the election cycle. Had he done nothing at all during the economic crash save purchasing all the failing mortgages both public and commercial, America would have suffered far less than it has but the rest of the world specifically Europe would now be much worse off. His footnote in the history books meant more to him than making the tough and very much correct decision. I’d certainly agree too many “of Wallstreet” likely had a far greater roll in pressing this with him but at the end of the day GWB needed to act out of confidence in what they KNEW to have worked with the S&L’s and not hurl everything into the unknown.

Morning all, Before I’m off to work, like to say that this was bound to happen. People can’t send out misleading rhetoric and expect it to work for the long term. If Obama really wanted to here the people, his recent Town Hall meetings wouldn’t be clearly staged, and despite some opinions, people can see through this and are responding accordingly.

Maybe this is a good argument with our friend Mathius about the ingnorant, maybe they aren’t so ignorant as one would think.

I think it makes my case about the ignorant, actually. They didn’t bother to find out who he was and what he was actually about, but they support(ed) him anyway because, at the surface, he was for Hope and Change (big H, big C).
Person 1: What does Obama stand for?
Person 2: I don’t really know.. Hope and Change?
Person 1: Good enough for me.. he’s got my vote.
Person 2: Well McCain is old, but Palin is cute and folksy so I’m not sure yet. Is Omama going to play politics as usual?
Person 1: Definitely not! He said so.
Person 2: Well then he’s got my vote.
Person 1: Sweet. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s go bury our heads in the sand and expect everything to work out the way we think it will.
Mathius: I cannot believe you two idiots have the same voting power I do.

Now that reality has had some time to set in, the numbers have come back toward what you might expect if people had the foresight and motive to figure these things out in advance.

For the record, I voted for Obama (shocker, I know), and I will likely vote for him next time around if nothing major changes between now and then. I support many (not all) of his policies.*

One thing I wholeheartedly support in the Obama administration is his determination (sometimes at a political cost to himself) to see both sides of an issue and try to use everything as an opportunity to teach. He usually acts in accordance with his political alignment, but he doesn’t usually throw out the other side’s arguments the way other Presidents have. Take for example the Gates fiasco – he should have stayed the hell out, but he chose to try to use it as a case study in race relations, it blew up on him a little, but I think it was important to try.

Lastly, 10 points to RS as promised, the correct answer was 26. Well done, and way to ignore the fact, that I referenced Dragnet.

*This is to be expected, there is only one person whose policies match mine 100%, and that is me. It is unlikely I will ever be President, but I hope I can count on your support if I do. You are also welcome to suggest running mates – sorry, no Canadians allowed.

That’s a shame. I would probably put you in charge of the Office of Dismantling Unnecessary Bureaucracy (ODUB). ODUB would be a new, powerful, and poorly funded, cabinet level position tasked with getting rid of pork, wasteful spending, etc. ($25k for a toilet seat!?!) You would be tasked with getting rid of the most egregious things first, and by the end of my first (and only) term, I would expect to have paid down a good portion of the national debt. If necessary, you could be authorized to use force with Congress.

There is no “way” to measure waste in government – without a profit/loss discipline of the marketplace, there is no way to know if a service/good is valued economically.

Of course, people hold some value to anything given to them for free and do not place a value on something that is forced on them. But this is not the same value if people had the freedom to buy or not buy a service/good.

But government does not and cannot run on a profit/loss mechanism since it simply takes the resources it needs from out of society, mushes it, and throws it back into society.

So, I could not even know if I would be doing a ‘good’ job for your administration – there would be no way to tell.

You’d ask me “How’s fixin’ the government waste, and all I would be able to do is (shrug) and say “I don’t know….”

The only way to get rid of ‘pork’ is to stop spending – period. But that won’t happen, so I couldn’t do the job there either.

The national debt cannot be repaid. It has to be inflated away – which means more money needs to be ‘printed’ and inserted into the economy, which is done by government spending…. which competes with the economic resources of the free market and drives out the ability for the economy to recover.

So the only way to pay down the debt is to stop spending totally and raise taxes. But, we already know that stopping spending is not a option. And you know what I think about taxes.

So, no matter what, I’d fail your administration – and I’m not a fan of failing.

So, as much as I’m flattered – I would still decline such an appointment.

You see “not starting wars” requires a strict ethic of not initiating force on innocents. That in turn leads to a govt that can not have “large mandates” because “effectiveness” and “efficiency” are not the measures of such a govt. It is “morality” that is the judge.

You have exposed the crack in your armor and now I will deploy the weapon you fear most. It is YOU. The crack has been exposed and so you will no longer be able to ignore it. So now you are going to have to battle with yourself.

You must decide to choose a life of supporting violence upon others, which will never satisfy your goal regarding foreign wars, or to choose of life of peace and prosperity, which will make you FREE.

I wish you well in this effort.
Your future and the future of my children depend on the outcome.
JAC

The mandates of which I am sure you are speaking require the government to regulate, impose itself upon others and of course tax the people.

All such behavior comprises the initiation of force by govt on its citizens.

In order to have a govt that adheres to an ethic of nonviolence against other countries but can use force/violence on its own citizens you must live with a deadly contradiction.

It is in fact the same contradiction that destroyed the dream of our founders. You see ethical contradictions are like black holes. They consume everything around them. In the hands of govt the contradiction is eliminated by eliminating the ethic of non violence.

I will offer you a life line. Your decision whether to pick it up. If you can find a way for your “mandates” to be carried out without the use of force you can eliminate the contradiction.

By the way, that is what many of us here are struggling to discover. Care to join us?

Government must use violence on its citizens or else it will cease to exist.

However, I am willing to watch JAC and USWep struggle around trying to figure out if they can come up with an organizing principle that handles their requirements which also does not contradict itself.

Imposing and violence are separate. Sometimes, a parent must put their child in a timeout, but this would not be construed as violence against the child. (Que jokes about a nanny state).

Further, your assumption is taken to an illogical conclusion. It is tantamount to saying “I dislike war, therefore, I dislike death, therefore, killing is always wrong, therefore killing animals is also wrong, therefore, mistreating them is also wrong, therefore I must be a vegan.”

I dislike starting offensive wars. Therefore I dislike starting offensive wars. I do not see imposing regulations and laws on citizens as a similar application of offensive unjustified force. Just because you do doesn’t make it my internal conflict.

You are at constant conflict internally. Your reptile brain says to do something and your more evolved part overrides it. How is this any different?

Internal conflict and “oppression” can be good. You, my friends, are the reptile part – are are the part that says we should do what we like (no taxes), I say that we should (tax away). You say to have ice cream for lunch, I say to eat your veggies.

“Take for example the Gates fiasco – he should have stayed the hell out, but he chose to try to use it as a case study in race relations, it blew up on him a little, but I think it was important to try.”

He created the Gates fiasco by interjecting his comments about something a) he had no first hand knowledge of and b) involved a local matter. PRESIDENTS DON’T DO THAT. At least those who have any clue about what real leadership is. The whole thing was a CYA moment trying to make him look like the Good guy when he was the one who fanned the flames.

This man has not figured out how to transition from “community orgranizer” (rabble rouser) and “campaigner” to a “leader”. I doubt he ever will because he has NO true leadership experience. He is trying to lead by force of personality alone. That will not work in Wash DC.

I love how you deride the general voters as uninformed and their vote should not count as much as yours when a) your guy wouldn’t have won without them and b) you intend to vote for the guy again based on what has happened so far.

The Gates thing was already making the rounds at the national level when he was asked about it. He just happened to step in it.

The guy is, if nothing else, a smart, smart person. As, as I’ve said, his ideas line up pretty well with mine. I think it likely he’ll figure out how to be a more effective leader given some time. Remember, health insurance blew up for Clinton early on too and he wound up doing a fairly decent job in my opinion. (note the surplus which someone evaporated once someone else got a hold of it).

The often quoted “surplus” of Clinton was short lived and directly tied to an “unexpected” increase in Capital Gains taxes resulting from heavy trading on Wall Street. Dot Com bubble, remember?

There were a few years of annual budget surplus as a result. Those surpluses had disappeared before June of 2001.

Before the sudden flush of unexpected cash, Clinton had created an appearance of reduced deficits because his long term budget pushed all the deficits into the 9th and 10th years. It was a trick used by all politicos. The actual short term deficit reductions are not real and don’t materialize. Unless the economy heats up unexpectedly.

Clinton did recognize a need to move towards the center after the health care debacle. Of course that ticked off the lefties in the party and you got the Soros types stepping up as the result. Oh those unintended consequences.

I would say Mr. Obama is very well educated and perhaps smart if you consider crafty, shifty and devious as part of smart. He is a consumate political machine and definitely learned that craft well.

I have seen nothing to convince me is very intelligent and he is certainly not wise.

Don’t forget that after his loss in the health care foray, he lost control of the Congress in the next election and many would credit the ‘surplus’ to Gingrich and the Republican house.

Also, Clinton’s successes can also be credited to the fact that he appealed to those middle of the road and ignored the far left and the far right loons. This is something that Obama could never do. As long as he gives Pelosi and Reid free rein, he will be seen as far left.

Fact 4: You work — so you are not a liberal based upon what you can get for “free” from the government – those liberals can have some age on them.

Fact 5: You are smart – I don’t feel like you would allow “family ties” to a party to sway your beliefs (i.e. my daddy before me was a Democrat, as was his daddy, as was his daddy).

Now, since you are an intelligent person (I don’t think we’ll get any arguments from anyone here about your intelligence), you simply could not be an older person. Why do I say that?

Mathius, most likely, there will come a time where you put aside the camp songs and face reality that Robin Hood is not romantic. There will come a point in your life, where you do come to the conclusion that you MUST make accommodations for your elder years so that you and your family will be able to live in some form of comfort. You will come to the conclusion that Government (Left or Right) will not take care of you based upon what your requirements for comfort are. You WILL come to resent the high taxes. You will come to resent those people who make bad decisions and you (and me) are left holding the bag to bail them out.

Mathius, when you do come to this realization, I will be waiting here with welcoming arms so that we can *itch together and figure out how to make life better in a realistic way. I promise you, I WILL NOT say, “I told you so”…’cause I hated it when my elders say that to me!

I find that age has SOMETHING to do with a movement towards the realization that freedom is preferable, but it certainly is not the deciding factor.

There are still plenty of middle-age and old folks that are convinced that the government is capable of solving all problems if the government would just learn to do it right.

The fact that the government is incapable of “learning to do it right” also seems to have no bearing on this particular and peculiar conviction for some people, regardless of age.

I myself was once convinced that if government was constructed properly it would be able to provide the solutions to the problems of the world.

I have since figured out that it is not possible to construct government properly to enable it to be able to do this.

There are basically 2 forms of Utopia. In Utopia #1 the government is all-powerful and yet completely benevolent, and has been able to solve all of the world’s problems.

In Utopia #2, government has disappeared because all of the problems of the world have been solved by the people, so they no longer require government.

Neither one of these Utopia’s is ever going to exist, because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER COMPLETELY ELIMINATE HUMAN SUFFERING!

With that in mind, I still feel that it is better to let the people strive to solve their own problems and leave the government out of it. Government usually has to CREATE problems in order to offer a government solution to the problems, and we have enough problems without the need to artificially create more.

JAC, good point on the difference between intelligence and educated. They are often thought to be one in the same – sometimes I think the more educated one is, the less intelligent they become! Maybe it’s just that indoctrination that occurs at those places of higher education????

It’s dangerous to conflate the two. I consider myself intelligent and fairly well educated. Of course there are those who are smarter and/or better educated. Still, it is difficult to be objective about such things (does that count as wisdom?).

Just remember, no man has the corner on truth (or woman, for that matter).

I contend the sagacity is not the sole jurisdiction of the elderly, but that jaded cynicism can cloud your vision as effectively as youth can cloud mine.

Here’s something to keep. Everything rides on the shoulders of perspective. From your political beliefs to what you are craving for supper. Those that share your entire life experiences to the nanosecond without any other accumulated data think just like you. The rest do not. Understand this and you’ll be able to leave another to their thoughts without feeling the need to make little of them.

“Now, since you are an intelligent person (I don’t think we’ll get any arguments from anyone here about your intelligence), you simply could not be an older person. Why do I say that?”

kinda insinuates that I think that older people aren’t intelligent… Ooops…didn’t mean for that! Hope I didn’t offend ANYONE out there with that sentence…the following paragraph hopefully depicts my continued thoughts on that!

I have remained on the sidelines mostly, but just have to comment . . . Matthias, I think your view of Mr. Obama is very skewed . . . as is your view of the government’s ability to do things efficiently and with pure motive.

Although I ahve cringed sometimes at Black Flag’s rhetoric, I believe that BF is much more in tune with the realities and dangers of the misinterpreation of “rights” and “power” than you are.

And, USW, I can’t help but point out that, prior to the elcection, Rush, Hannity, Beck and others that have been summarily discounted, begged us to look behind the rhetoric and the aura and look at the facts of the Chicago past, the lack of experience, and the previous rhetoric . . . all of those things make it difficult for me to agree with you when you say that our President is operating from fair motives that seek to do the right thing . . .

I’d argue not so much the intelligence but those on the right actually being able to navigate the blue nothing equal to his own followers. The right, left and center is now driven by their own information gathering abilities afforded them by their personal computers. The main stream media, like Arlen Specter, is becoming less relevant daily.

I think a major part of dropping approval is the inherent distrust and distaste people have for government. Whichever party is in power earns the scorn of the people pretty much no matter what they do. I think a major part of the democrats victory at the polls was the belief that republicans were in control of the government, including congress. A large part now, though, of the disapproval I believe comes from the rhetoric we hear out of our own representatives. A congressperson who can call his or her constituents evil-mongers doesn’t deserve a seat.

I saw a segment on Lou Dobbs last night about health care and framing it as a moral question. The democratic strategist was asked about it and he said that the plan cannot succeed as a budget question. It’s too expensive so some people won’t want to pay for it. Dobbs then went on to expound on the moral question by pointing out that the government uses the number 47 million uninsured. He pointed out that most of this number is inflation. I can’t recall all the numbers but something like 12-20 million illegals, 10 million who choose not to have it, 10 million who are “underinsured” (like me, though I don’t believe it). In the end the truer number was something like 13 million. And even these, said Dobbs, can get free care at an emergency room, so where’s the moral question? The strategist shifted to saying that we pay top dollar for their free care. Lo and behold, we’re back to the budget question and the plan has no moral support. This sort of debunking will tear Obama’s approval even lower, especially from the religious right whom Obama is basically saying aren’t good Christians because they don’t want the government to take their money to help other people.

If the Congress uses their nuclear option to slam through health care, the polls will light up next year. They have the knife in their hands hovering above their chest with no one to blame but themselves. When the taxes start rising (how can they not with the rate the government is spending) approval ratings will drop even further. If the media were against Obama as much as they were against Bush, Obama’s approval would be far below 50% even now, less than a year into his presidency. I don’t want a lame duck for the next three years. I hope Obama starts to represent all of us rather than only less than half of us.

This points out specifically the rhetoric of the campaigns which at best remained vague is unusable in the White House. When specifics are needed, they must be presented and exaggerations accepted on the road to the office of president are no longer excusable. Nor should they be. Children cry over spilled milk, the president shouldn’t. So no more “blame GWB”, no more exaggerations, no more “how dare you question POTUS”, no more “what the rest of the world thinks”, get to work cleaning up your own back yard and quit disrupting regularly scheduled broadcasts.

Originally published 02:07 p.m., August 20, 2009, updated 10:05 a.m., August 21, 2009

President Obama took to the conservative airwaves Thursday to charge that Republican leaders are engaged in a vast right-wing conspiracy to kill health care reform in order to repeat the 1994 mid-term takeover of Congress, which followed the defeat of President Clinton’s reform plan.

“I think early on, a decision was made by the Republican leadership that said, ‘Look, let’s not give him a victory, maybe we can have a replay of 1993, ’94, when Clinton came in, he failed on health care and then we won in the mid-term elections and we got the majority. And I think there are some folks who are taking a page out that playbook,” the president said.

Appearing on the Michael Smerconish radio show, Mr. Obama said he would “love to have more Republicans engaged and involved in this process,” but he vowed to win the battle, with or without support from the minority party in Congress.

Sounds to me like Obama wants Republicans to support his policies or else get out of the way. A true bi-partisan program would not ram through the parts that the other side doesn’t want with the “nuclear” option of getting only 51 votes rather than the usual 60.

Anything POTUS is now pitching will meet with skepticism in that one demographic which counts in 2010, the centrists. The left will always be left, vote left, talk left, write left, form unions and strike for more when their habits warrant such. So why worry about what they say when all you have to do is lift their rhetoric into the light of day?

Like those warmists once again trapped in the nonexistent ice having to call the Canadian Coast Guard to come rescue them as nonexistent icebergs slam into their ship after being themselves told that ice wasn’t there in the first place. Like Greenpeace’s former top guy admitting to the organization’s biggest outright lie ever being the vanishing Arctic ice. Reality is oblivious to fantasy science and political correctness.

The people are angry. They have not received the pet unicorns that were promised them. Until they are delivered they will be mad. Sorry, I had to throw in some unicorns for our new liberal friends. I know liberals love unicorns.

I think most people rate the president by how life is treating them. At the beginning of his presidency they figured the bad economy was not his fault because he hadn’t been in long enough, but it’s been a while now and things haven’t gotten better, so their fond feelings are evaporating. I think as long as the economy is tanking his numbers are going to go down.

Yes, he spouted rhetoric that was pretty vague. People filled in the blanks with what they wanted to believe he meant. They, meaning the democrats, have always wanted to control the country. We don’t wish to be controlled. They won? Our country lost.

Like you USW, I am listed as a Independent. Not because I am a extreme in my views. Its because I feel like both parties left me. I am middle of the road. I am always sad that we cant get a legimate person that represents us in this group. We are forced to pick, as I call it, lesser of two evils. McCain/Palin was the worst ran campaign I will propably will ever see. So, as you said, it should have been a landslide. I remember the Reagan landslide. I was in Junior High. Mondale didnt stand a chance.

I was hopeful when election night was over. As I am on every election night. That the person that is voted in does this country well. But the curtain has been lifted. Congress has been as much involved in this mess as Bush ever was. And now people are starting to see this.
But the one thing that stuck with me during this election was- with that high of ratings, that much hope- if things dont right, it will have a horrible backlash. I believe that is what we are seeing now.
People, I believe, are pissed off at both parties and are sick of being the puppets in the show. Which I think could be a good thing. Maybe that will bring the change we need. I think both parties are shaking their heads not knowing how to react to this outrage across the board.
Even my mom- who is a die hard Republican, she so fed up with all the them. She finally understands why I list myself as a Indp.

Very Damn Little Government(VDLG)- I think that government should back off. Their involvement in our everyday lives is getting old. For one- they are not very good at running things- way to much fraud occurs, way to much is spent. State government is suppose to run the state-feds are stepping in where they shouldnt. I believe that if you want something-work for it. I have no issue giving a hand to someone who has hit hard times. It could happen to anyone. But if you are expecting a hand out-wrong place to look.
I dont like putting on regulations on what CEO’s can or cant do. But I also dont like them making terrible business choices and expecting to bail out by us either. I dont believe in abortion- but that decision came after years of being on both sides of the issue.
I do believe in family responiblity. If you kids screw up- dont blame the system. Parents need to teach their kids. But as a gay women, I also believe in gay rights. Not because I think I am special, because I am American. I believe serving in military is a honor, and glad I did. I do believe in immigration if done legally. I put the blame on not only on the person crossing the border illegally, the employers who continue to hire them.

Well said again. I think most government programs should have an expiration date, or be offered to private industry to operate. Post office, let UPS or Fed Ex buy and operate.
Would not work for everything, but would be a start.

I believe that it is the attitude that the current administration projects. The administration has done nothing to show that they are for the people and not for themselves and their supporters. The elitist label sure seems to fit this POTUS.

During some town hall type meetings where he is pitching his health care reform when asked a question, he rambles on and on…this keeps the questions at a minimum and most all of the questions he fields seem staged.

His inexperience is showing through, as well as his social agenda. If folks would have listened to what he said during the campaign, rather than how he said it, they would have realized that this man is not the answer.

You said: They seem to want a King. One man to lead and inspire us all. One man to direct and control everything for All our benefits.

Ahhh…the entitlement-lemming mentality. Under the world of D13, there would be no entitlement programs. There would be the freedom to compete and allow man-kind, woman-kind and outer space kind to use their talents to provide, and therfore, reason and be benevolent should they desire. There would be no taking from one to the other. It would be voluntary.

Hi again…Sorta off topic….but you know that the family has ranching interests, as I have mentioned before….we have a pure cattle only operation, and the federal government gives us a check each year to NOT grow wheat or corn. We did not apply for it and we send it back every year not wanting it. But because we are a ranch in the middle of some farming country, we qualify for this STUPID subsidy simply because we are land owners. Our beloved government sends it back each and every time. KEEP IN MIND THIS WAS NOT APPLIED FOR and we do not want it. But because they will not put it back into the treasury and the subsidy program is actually based upon how much is spent….they cannot show it back….so we basically divide it into two different donations to (1) Children’s Burn Center in Texas, and (2) and to our county food bank. The amount you ask????? A paltry $87,540 to NOT grow wheat or corn. The new’s media is not interested in this and neither is CNN or Fox.. Go figure….This has been going on since 1995.

He made the down payment and CRP (fed govt) paid it off over ten years.

There was a ranch that SUL and I looked at recently that fit our desires quit nicely. Being in MT however, one can’t make a ranch work economically. Land values are driven by “Last Best Place” valuation not beef or wheat.

Anyhow, we sat down and developed a scenario that would pay the place off using nothing but Govt programs. But that included some valuation from Cap and Trade. One of our friends called us crazy. He now works for a State and handles the federal handouts to the counties.

The other day he called to apologize. You know what? he said, you were right.

I knew about that. I know a family group that celebrate those checks, they have made a fortune off of them. Unlike you- they have kept it and lived high off the hog. I was always shocked trying understand that logic.

Thanks all… I wish that most of our neighboring ranches would have done that but they buy their cars and things…It is truly amazing. We have 26,000 acres that could not grow corn if we wanted it to…has great grass and 4500 head of cattle….we even had the county commissioner out there and the resident agriculture agent to take us off this program and change our “official” status to ranch land. We were told flat out to it was not worth the effort…they seemed to think that 84 grand was a pittance…just take it. Plus, we pay land taxes on agricultural and not ranch….it does not make sense. But no government handouts….40 years in the military was enough government service. Do not want to be indebted to them.

As I read your post, I thought, no big deal, just give it to charity, but when I finished and saw the amount, and knowing I’ve wanted, and could use a nice decked out truck (only extended cab) I’m afraid I would have a problem in mailing that back !!

Even a kid in grade school knows that if you keep pouring water (money) out of a glass (federal budget) without refilling it the glass will eventually go dry.

Common thinking people (not the lemmings) are afraid of the huge deficit and how it will affect them and their posterity. They are beginning to see through the political smoke and mirrors. Instead of hope and change they are getting more of the same.

I think you nailed this on all points. “He carried 53% of the popular vote to 46% for McCain.” If the election were held today, we would see a reversal. Why? During the election the media was able to portray Obama as a “centerist”, they deliberately covered up some of his extreme views and actions. Its gotten too big.

The economy, unemployment, auto bailout and clunkers, and his poor choices.
He cannot muzzle Biden, Pelosi and Reed, nor explain away their screw-ups. It does not matter that Pelosi crafted the stimulus, Obama supported and signed it, with all its hidden pork and agendas. Too much of that has become common knowledge, even NBC, that sells Obama T-shirts can’t excuse or cover-up all that has gone on. A few of the health bills falsehoods were exposed before they could pass it, now the questions, and most especially how those questions are answered is being looked at by the fence sitters and the independents.

A captain of a lifeboat, taking on water, with a first mate & engineer who’s primary concern seems to be that the passengers are comfortable, well fed and such. Some of the passengers are wondering about why fewer people are bailing, and the waters getting deeper. Not to worry miss, care for some tea and crumpets?

That he was sold as the closet centrist is unassailable. I would dare any on the left to make an intelligent stand otherwise.

Now that you’ve seen the show, its become apparent that the best parts were shown in the trailers? “Oh Brother Where Art My Bailout” and the sequel “The Democrat’s Bucket List” Enjoy the show… sorry no refunds, tax or otherwise.

Your analysis leaves off one thing. The drop in Mr. Obama’s popularity is not all tied to those who disagree with him. The other day I saw a clip of a townhall Sean Hannity did that had about 50/50 split with those who voted for and against.

Many of those who voted for were disappointed and declared “unfavorable” of him so far. But their reason was that HE WAS NOT JUST PUSHING THROUGH HIS/THEIR AGENDA. The know they have the majority and don’t understand why he is not taking a leadership role in getting the program passed.

I find this disquieting becasue politico start looking at the pieces of polls and if they conclude that they can get his numbers up by just pushing forward on the progressive agenda…..

People are finally paying attention, when they should have paid attention during the campaign. McCain was an unbelievably weak candidate, but if people would have done even a little bit of research on Obama, they would have realized what “Hope and Change” meant to him.

His poll numbers have dropped relative to the speed that his campaign promises were found to be nothing more than, in some cases, outright lies. You mention some of them USW. I think Obama knows his cover is slowly coming undone, which is why the quick legislation, and the increase in the divisive language he is using.

I see him becoming desparate and that concerns me a great deal. His narcisstic personality won’t allow for such a public failure as health care reform so he will use all his power, legal or not, to “win”. Yesterday’s posting on requesting information from insurance companies is just one example; worse are probably coming.

It seems like few people on this blog actually liked McCain, but I did. One of my favorite things about him is that he was a centrist. He even had to go pretty far to the right with Sarah Palin to mobilize the base on the right. It is a sad part of our history when the most LIBERAL senator tops one of the more liberal CONSERVATIVE senator as a representative of the entire people of the united states. Even the conservatives didn’t like McCain. It’s like a great saying I’ve heard. The best compromise leaves both sides angry…

You are right, McCain is a cenrist and I truly admire his service to our country. I believe he is for America, however, his entire campaign was run so badly and even he wouldn’t stand up for himself. When the NYT endorsed McCain early on in the primaries, I knew the Repubs were in trouble.

Agreed. Had the “You’re just another George Bush!” brush not been available to paint McCain with he’d be president not Barack Obama, melanin content accounted for. George W Bush handed the election over to the Democrats for a place in the immediate history being seen under a more favorable light. Had he the stones to give up such ego, America would be better off by far. Had he the foresight to go on TV with every single complaint when the Democrats went against his wishes such as in 2003 when GWB requested that the House establish oversight over Fannie and Freddie (shot down by Barney and crew), their party and not his would have been seen as owning the mortgage bubble lock, stock and barrel without question in.

As for Obama himself, somehow you must find out what’s really hidden there in all of his doings in college! There dwells the real Barack Obama, bereft of the foresight to have hidden his true beliefs in preparation for his future as a politico and in full view the learned ingredients which begat him much of his perspective. My time in higher learning shaped much of whom I am today as it indeed did for most of my good friends. That it would be the same for Barack Obama is obvious and to deny such disingenuous. In this information you might just have your best shot at shining a light on an enormous bit of grifting and gain a lever with which to accomplish a massive shift for the upcoming senate races.

I don’t see the Republican party doing a decent job of making coffee during the 2010 senate race let alone taking the lion’s share of 11 swing seats available. So its up to those who want to put a set of brakes on this roller coaster rather than risk the whole lot going off the tracks with finality. “standupforamerica”? You bloody well better because the politico certainly won’t.

I myself do not think Obama is basically a good person. He is arrogant, elitist, statist, socialist, and several other -ists I can’t think of right now.

I do think that he is more of a pawn than he thinks. He is a puppet for George Soros and his buddies, and he’s also so badly indebted to the unions that voted him in that he’ll never make a decision that is not biased in favor of them. I give you GM and Chrysler as proof.

As some know I have recently become somewhat Anarchist in my view of the Government. I won’t vote Republican OR Democrat unless I truly feel they can do good. That means I probably won’t vote for either candidate in 2010 and will most likely write in my vote.

Unlike a lot of people I never had faith Obama would do any good for us at all. But my worst fears have come to be realized in just the last 7 or 8 months he’s been there. He cares nothing for America OR Americans. He is dragging us kicking and screaming into Socialism. At least he and his idiot Homies are going to try.

I have to dis-agree. Its not that Obama is a bad person, he just see’s things differently. You and I could not sit in a church that promoted hate
for two sermons, much less for years. Obama and Pelosi BELIEVE in big government being better for all of us, and don’t feel bad using any means to accomplish this. And there are at least 53 rabid followers of theirs in congress, and its not them following Obama, they are following the same “vision”, of a large, benevolent government caring for its citizens. And you and I share a vision of small government, and more personal freedom.

Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), a member of the Progressive Caucus claimed at a news conference today on Capitol Hill that she had a letter with 53 signatures, attesting to that. “We have gathered here today to demand that the final health-care legislation has a robust public option and to vow we will vote against it if it does not,” she said.

I live in N. Idaho and believe me you’re still affected . . . though there are people who disappear into the wilderness. Course they end up like Randy Weaver. The govt just doesn’t like non-conformists.

I’m with you in not being able to see any good in Obama. I in fact, see evil. Don’t ask me to explain it because its a gut feeling.

You said that every other country is worse than this one. That’s right but not for long. One, because our country is gong down the tubes very quickly, and two other countries have had a taste of freedom and prosperity. Once America is out of the picture, some of the other countries will step up. Just because powerful Americans no longer value freedom and proserity, that doesn’t mean the rest of the world doesn’t. They’ll want what we no longer do.

You said, “Independents are Independents because they are fed up with both parties.”

I will grant you that this is likely the case with a very large percentage of Independents. However, as you pointed out, in some States the Independent is prented from voting in the primary elections of either major party.

I would also point out that regardless of the fact that there are a growing number of Independents, in the VAST majority of elections, if you choose to vote you must still vote for either a candidate with a (D) after his/her name or a candidate with an (R) after his/her name. Quite often (over 95% of the time in all likelyhood) these are STILL the only 2 choices.

So, my question to you is: Does registering as an Independent ACTUALLY accomplish anything?

Excellent question. I believe that it does accomplish something. I believe that it sends a message to the party you leave that they no longer can count on your support. As long as I was registered to either party, that party felt confident that they had my vote come election day. Now, neither party can comfortably feel they have me. And in today’s political climate, that makes ME the person they feel they have to please in order to win. After all, it is that middle America that decides every election.

Much like voting giving legitimacy to government, I think registering as a member of a party gives legitimacy to the party. And both of these parties deserve no legitimacy.

I believe that they are allowed. In addition, we actually have a libertarian candidate that won election to our city/county council (still only 1 out of 30 members, but 1 is better than 0). He did not win on a write-in, he won by being on the actual ballot.

I am not terribly familliar with all of the voting rules for Indy since I have not voted here in about 20 years, so my information is 2 decades out of date when it comes to the actual laws/procedures that are accepted here.

Help this feeble minded independent understand, I can see why you supported him in the past, but in the future? Maybe its just me, but when someone lies to me and gets caught, its hard for me to believe they won’t do so again. “For the record, I voted for Obama (shocker, I know), and I will likely vote for him next time around if nothing major changes between now and then. I support many (not all) of his policies.*”

No. 234: Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama “will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

No. 240: Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials

“No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.”

And right now with the healthcare debate roaring, he starts out with false, misleading statements. 46 un-insured in America (true), need to be helped.
But 11 million are illegal aliens who will not be included in any of these measures. He will admit that, but always starts with 46M. 46-11=35? I am surprised you do not expect and demand honesty. Instead of flying to all these town halls, why is he not sitting down with Democrats and Republicans in congress, live, on camera, so America can see who is trying to actually fix our health care system, and who is using it as an issue to further their agenda.

The mantra for all politicians: I am not a crook (best if said while shaking your jowls)

They say what they need to say because the IGNORANT MASSES will hear only that. You, I, and everyone else in this room knew full well that half of that would go right out the window. It’s like when a restaurant advertises “the best burger on Earth.”* It’s full and you have to take it as such.

His only real promises was to push the country to the left and pass health care reform.**

They all lie, they do it well and convincingly, there is a reason they get where they are and it is generally not because they are fine specimens of humanity. You have to vote for the individual who you feel will best represent your view points – not necessarily the most truthful one (then you’d get Ross “I will raise your taxes” Perot instead of George “Read my lips, no new taxes” Bush Sr).

*In case you’re interested, the best burgers on Earth come from In ‘n’ Out, a fast food burger chain located in the Cali, Nevada, and Arizona.

“Office of Dismantling Unnecessary Bureaucracy (ODUB). ODUB would be a new, powerful, and poorly funded, cabinet level position tasked with getting rid of pork, wasteful spending, etc.” See, I could support this, their budget would come from a percentage of what they save the taxpayers, including million dollar bonuses.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of “if you don’t want to work, you get nothing, but if you are UNABLE to work, you get help.”

That’s great. You get no argument from me whatsoever. Now please explain to me why it is necessary to have a government just to ensure that the people that are unable to get work get help??? Seems that we have Churches and charities perfectly willing to help with that sort of stuff.

Also seems to me that right now the government is giving an AWEFUL LOT of our money to people that could work if they wanted to, but simply choose not to because the government is giving them money for choosing not to.

How are you going to get the government to comply with your definition of who is eligible for help?

You’re falling into the same trap again. Just because the system as implemented is flawed, does not mean that the idea should be done away with.

I said this yesterday, I think, but it bears repeating: Without taxes, I trust you to give to charity, I give to charity, I think a lot of people here would. But Pete seems a little shifty. I’m not so convinced he would. And a lot of other people wouldn’t either. So fewer people means we would have to give more to accomplish the same results. Since you, obviously, think you’re already giving too much, you would probably give less. So now we have fewer people giving less to accomplish much the same thing. The charity approach sounds great, but it doesn’t work in practice. Never has, never will because people. are. greedy.

Also, you can’t get unemployment benefits if you aren’t looking for work. You are required to go on a certain number of interviews and apply for a certain number of jobs every week. And they do check. I know this because I was laid off in December and applied. I was ineligible because I had a severance but I still learned a good deal about the system. Plus benefits only last so long. So these people aren’t just collecting benefits indefinitely without strings. It’s a safety net. Does it work perfectly? No. Do some people abuse it? Absolutely. Does that mean we should scrap it? Absolutely not.

The problem, and you hit the nail on the head, is how to make the government comply with my definition of who is eligible. Just because I don’t have the answer to that doesn’t mean that the underlying concept is flawed, just its execution.

I had a friend when I grew up whose family was on welfare. His house was little more than a shack and they had no furniture, the car was ancient. However, he had two x-boxes, a new computer, and a huge TV – I did not. The obvious unfairness is a symptom of poor design in the system, not a poor system. Safety nets should keep people above abject poverty, but it shouldn’t buy them video games. It should give them canned tuna, not filet mignon. This, I think, would fall perfectly under ODUB’s mandate.

It is not possible to design a government program in such a way that it would behave in the way that you describe.

It might start out that way, but eventually more and more people would complain that in some way or other it was “unfair”. In response to this claim of unfairness, the government would expand the program and loosen the eligibility requirements in the hopes of obtaining more votes.

At the point where the program expanded beyond its original scope, you (and others that think much like you do) would be unhappy with the government, but many more people who were suddenly “getting freebies” would outweigh your displeasure.

The other problem is, you would not blame the problem on the fact that this is the way that the government operates, and would still believe that the government was capable of doing it right, if only they had kept the scope of the program within the original limits. Unfortunately, as soon as the government program came into existence, there was no hope of it ever retaining its original limited scope.

If you drive to work at one mph faster each day, you’ll be fine the first few days but eventually, you’ll get pulled over, or kill yourself.

Changing programs beyond their original scope is much the same. How, then, are we to stop this? I haven’t the foggiest. Doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

I appreciate your thought about the expansion and freebies. Perhaps the answer is to make it more difficult for politicians to alter programs and leave it in the hands of the career professionals running it?

Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996 under his promise to “end welfare as we know it”.
PRWORA instituted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) which became effective July 1, 1997.

Since its passage there has been a measurable decrease in the poverty level. This was overturned by the stimulus act of 2009.

Bill Clinton was going down in history for ending the welfare society. Nancy Pelosi took that from him, and Obama signed off on it.

Padwan? How dare you. I admit to being a nerd (as evidenced by my suggestion that BF also guards the Mines of Moria), but I will not be condescended to in such a way by a North Montanan.

I don’t need to have both. I will allow reason and the light of logic to dictate my beliefs in all things except this. In ‘n’ Out shall be acknowledged as the greatest or I shall have to declare you all mad and find myself a new right-leaning blog. There is no third way.

Because if I don’t, I get someone else’s enslavement.* And that enslavement* would be far more to the right. Further, after the disaster of the Bush years, I know full well how a Republican win would have been interpreted. It would have been view as a validation of a criminal**, bible-thumping***, cynical regime. The right**** would have viewed it as justification to continue on a course which greatly damaged my country. This is much the same as the way that the left viewed it as proof that the country wanted to move left.*****

*I am using your term. In no way do I view having a government as slavery. And anyway, Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace.

**Illegal, warrantless wiretaps. Deliberate lies to lead a country into a war on false proof. Torture of detainees in direct contradiction of our treaty obligations etc.******

***Nothing wrong with thumping the bible, but I just don’t like it being used as a justification to push religious policies on me (think stem cells, abortion rights) or to interfere with a single person in a personal decision (think Terry Shivo) or to push fatally flawed “education” on our children (think abstinence only).

****they’re to the right of me, to you, BF, they’re that hazy dot on the horizon far to your left. I’m the speck just a little bit past that.

*****They’re both wrong.. people weren’t happy so they voted out the incumbent party. Also the McCain campaign was a mess and Obama is a good speaker, and people are lemmings.

******Yes, yes, I know, they’re all criminals. This one just happened to be a little more flagrant than I’m prepared to accept.

“***Nothing wrong with thumping the bible, but I just don’t like it being used as a justification to push religious policies on me (think stem cells, abortion rights) or to interfere with a single person in a personal decision (think Terry Shivo) or to push fatally flawed “education” on our children (think abstinence only).”

Interesting. Why does the left not view the consequences to others of the “rights” that they espouse as the only legitimate and acceptable “truth”?

Unlimited abortion and stem cell research is a protected right? What about the rights of the lives that are destroyed in the process?

Terry Shivo? Complicated, yes, but a slippery slope is a slippery slope . . . the same slope that is being debated now.

Fatally flawed education? Good grief, We now teach our children that condoms and free sex are a human right . . . devoid of consequence . . . even though medical science and statistics scream to the contrary.

I know, many will say my comments are tired and worn out. But I am tired and worn out from the stereotype against common sense and reality . . .

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[…].”

If you wish to argue that an embryo is a human being, you are welcome to attempt to do so on the solid ground of logic and reason. You man not do so on the basis of a book written by committee 200-400 years after the death of the man it is about.

We’ll leave Shivo alone for now.

If I may offer an example to demonstrate my point regarding abstinence only: There are few who pull this line harder than Mr. Sarah Palin. Yet, her own daughter went out and got herself pregnant. Why? Because, as she said, she was told that condoms do not work, and that they are dangerous, so she didn’t use them. This is the effect of denying information to minors. They’re going to make poor decisions anyway, so why deny them in information that may help them when they do?

Also, it may appear from the reading of the last paragraph that I believe underage and/or out of wedlock sexual relations to be a “bad idea.” I do not. I fully support this practice, provided it is done safely. It is the religions which have ordained that it is bad – please support this argument without religion. Until you do, I will support underage sex, gay sex, group sex, unmarried sex, oral sex, anal sex, sex in the ear canal, and anything else that people can come up with as long as it is consensual.

“Common sense (or, when used attributively as an adjective, commonsense, common-sense, or commonsensical), based on a strict construction of the term, consists of what people in common would agree on: that which they “sense” as their common natural understanding. Some people (such as the authors of Merriam-Webster Online) use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that — in their opinion — most people would consider prudent and of sound judgment, without reliance on esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what they see as knowledge held by people “in common”. Thus “common sense” (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people allegedly have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have. “

I think that it is quite obvious that 12 year olds having sex isn’t a good thing- Emotionally, physically, or economically.

Is it your contention that without religion there is no morality?

“morality” can be used either
1.descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
a.some other group, such as a religion, or
2.accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
3.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. ”

Please take note of the word rational-As far as all the other types of sex-I really don’t care what adults do in their bedrooms but as far as group sex-I would prefer that society not endorse it.

wow.. I really, really want to have this debate with you. I however, have to finish up my work day and get home before the apocalypse comes (here referring to the weather, which looks very bad out). Let’s have this out Monday.

But some quick thoughts for you to consider over the weekend:

1. I had sex at 13 and seem to be ok. Some might argue this, so maybe you have a point…

2. There are two options for morality in light of religion: either God created morality, in which case it is intrinsic to his laws, but not bound by logic, or it is bound by logic and endorsed by Him. If option one, you confirm that God is arbitrary. If option two, you must prove your case based on logic alone. Choose wisely.

For me, I believe that morality is independent of faith. As such, if you say “sex is immoral in certain circumstances,” I think you should be able to build a sound logical case.

Finally, before I bid you all a happy weekend, I contend that there is nothing “common” in your beliefs. Only half the country thinks the way you do on this subject, so I would submit that if one, then the other, else neither.

Please don’t forget to pick this up Monday, because I will.. I’m getting senile in my old age.

I am pro-choice. I am not upset the media portrayed Palin as an extreme Pro- lifer.(she was/is)but she never tried to force it on others.
I do have an issue with the media portraying Obama as a moderate on abortion.
I feel parents rights are important, and he has voted against requiring parental notification. He also supports partial birth abortion, and you loose me pretty fast there. A medical procedure where the suck out the brain of a fetus, to get around the law on live birth?

Again, I am not asking about your knowledge. If the woman is pregnant, and knows it, your position is that she may not abort?

That is twice you have claimed scientific fact,n but show no proof. You are usually pretty good (annoyingly so) at presenting proof to support your case. I see none yet.

Is a piece of skin “human” it has human DNA, but it cannot think, it cannot act. How then, do you define a single (or few) celled thing as a human? It is no different and to say so is to draw inferences about the nature of “life” which are not supported by fact.

If a person cannot be forced to give, for any reason (and this is your own argument), how is it that a mother can be forced to give her body, her blood, her nutrients, her oxygen away?

Again, I am not asking about your knowledge. If the woman is pregnant, and knows it, your position is that she may not abort?

Again, how do I know?

I can only act in reality. My hands move through physical space when I move them.

I cannot move my hand through non-physical space. It doesn’t exist.

If I have no knowledge about an existence, how I can I hold an opinion about it?

That is twice you have claimed scientific fact,n but show no proof.

Are you claiming it is not alive? Surely you know that to be ridiculous.

So, are you claiming it is not human? Surely you know that is ridiculous.

(sigh) Any medical textbook will help you.

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune: “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

What is commonly misused as an argument is the attempt by pro-abortionists that ‘beginning of life’ is unknown. But it is known, and has been known for over 200 years.

The challenge is, of course, is that killing a human life is disturbing. Thus, they attempt to ‘fog up’ when life begins. They want to kill a group of cells that is not alive nor human so that they can feel morally satisfied.

Their argument is convoluted and bizarre.

Is a piece of skin “human”

No it is not. It is wholly different in every measurable way from its parents.

has human DNA, but it cannot think, it cannot act.

Thus, by your convoluted argument, a person is no longer human if they are in a vegetative state. If they are not human, pray tell me, what are they?

Pray tell me, what is ‘thinking’ and how do you measure it so you can tell that you are human or not?

What act do you wish? If a person cannot move, they are not human either?

How then, do you define a single (or few) celled thing as a human?

By its DNA. This determines the difference between something being a dog and something being human.

If I have a zygote from a dog, and it survives for two years, I have a dog – 100% of the time. It never turns into a cat.

If I have a zygote from a human and it survives for two years, it will be a one year old child – 100% of the time. It never is a cat.

It is no different and to say so is to draw inferences about the nature of “life” which are not supported by fact.

But, sir, 100% a human zygote is a human zygote. This is a fact.

It is not a dog zygote or a monkey zygote.

If a person cannot be forced to give, for any reason (and this is your own argument), how is it that a mother can be forced to give her body, her blood, her nutrients, her oxygen away?

It was not forced on her.

Choosing to leap out of airplanes, on your own will, will have the consequence of you plummeting to the ground. It is bizarre to claim that hitting the ground was ‘forced on you’.

She chose, by her own will, to have sex – and the common consequence of that is children. It as bizarre to claim that the child was ‘forced’ on her.

“Is a piece of skin “human” it has human DNA, but it cannot think, it cannot act. How then, do you define a single (or few) celled thing as a human? It is no different and to say so is to draw inferences about the nature of “life” which are not supported by fact.”

A piece of skin left attached in its natural state lives and fulfills its purpose. Those few living cells left attached in their natural state live and fulfill a purpose also.

By your reasoning a person in a coma that cannot think or act is not human. Why not kill him.

An embryo is the next generation of the human . . . produced by the intentional union of two humans . . . and is therefore a human . . . to call the new life the equivalent of a tapeworm or other parasite is contrary to any scientific comparison of the embryo to the two humans that created it. Also, to call the embryo (and therefore the developing child) a “parasite” indicates a coldness toward life that makes this 50 year shudder . . . and no “bible-thumping” is necessary to reach these conclusions.

If you like Heinlan, I have another suggestion for you. Read Time Enough for Love. Do not be put off by the title, or the fact that it’s 8 billion pages long. It is well worth the read. You will be thouroghyly repulsed but it near utopia in my eyes if I remember it correctly.

I spent a whole year on crutches, same time my parents were bitterly divorcing, my orthopedic surgeon gave me my first set of Lord of the Rings, wore them out in 4 months. It was a really bad time and thankfully, Tolkein gave me a place to run and hide. Tolkein had a big dislike for industrialization and war, did a high school paper on him ..

I think Obama’s numbers are dropping because of the promises he made during his campaign and now he is not keeping any of them. The people don’t trust or believe him and congress anymore. He says one thing, then does the complete opposite.

He sang a pretty love song to them, they swooned, they voted for him, now we’re sunk. All those younger voters out there who voted for him didn’t have a clue as to what he stood for, didn’t know what any of the issues were, just heard the words “CHANGE”, and I think that’s what got them.

Sure, he’s a great speaker, has a way with words, saying all the things he was going to do and not do, but didn’t follow through. Now we have the highest deficit ever than we ever had before, and it will take a miracle to get out of.

Wanting to take control of everything, including our lives doesn’t seem to be helping him any either. I put a lot of the blame on congress, because I think they are the ones who are really running this country and they are the ones who are telling Obama the way things are going to be, and he just goes along with them. He might be the president, but congress are the ones who are controlling him.

I’ve said the same to often on Fox, here, Wired… My nephew could read very well at the age of 4 thanks to my sisters dedication. Too bad he’s a Canadian as that appears to be a guarantee of the highest praise in America.

YOU’VE GOT TO LOVE THIS RANCHER’S OUTLOOK & COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO LIFE .

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher, who’s hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his election as president.

The old rancher said, ‘Well, ya know, Obama is a ‘Post Turtle”.

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ‘post turtle’ was.

The old rancher said, ‘When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a ‘post turtle’.

The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor’s face so he continued to explain. ‘You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, and he doesn’t know what to do while he’s up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put him up there to begin with’.

Looks like things were not as peaceful as the media portrayed. Although its not like this was alot of people and they were far away from the Pres.

There is a lesson in the post I link to here and the video I will link next, also taken by Left wing internet news group.

That is that the conclusions reached are obviously affected by the bias of those percieving the events. You need to understand that many of the left in MT are hard core progressive/socialists they are always pushing the limits and then when the police or someone else pushes back it is evidence of violence by the other side.

I’m sorry JAC, I read that article and I’m just not buying all of it and I say that because we all know how liberal the main stream media has become. If those things had happened as that young lady stated you know as well as I do the media would have been all over them. The media does conservatives no favors.

And why is everyone doubting the media? Asking if a black man carrying a gun to protest a black president’s policies is racist, oops, lets cover-up that he’s black, no one will notice.

MSNBC probably went the farthest on all this with some truly remarkable claims on Tuesday, August 18. Showing the clip of the anonymous black man carrying the “assault rifle,” but editing it so that one was not able to see the man’s race, Contessa Brewer said: “But also there are questions whether this has a racial overtone. I mean here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists.” Another person on the same show noted the”anger about a black person being president” and about “the black man becoming president. You know we see these hate groups rising up.”

Worse yet as I call it “editing away his ethnicity”. So offended are they of his greater melanin count than POTUS that they felt compelled to do such stripping away his obviously undiluted African ancestry as not to affront the president so. How sad.

Now I wasn’t there and I am tainted by having watched the lefties in this state for a long time but it appears to me that these photos show a pretty peaceful assembly at the beginning.

The video shows, in my opinion, the Pro folks moving into the area occupied by the Anti crowd and then using the bull horn technique to irritate. They apparently succeeded.

My opinion is further formed by the supposed statement of the policeman. Our cops here are generally pretty professional. If he said something to the effect of what do you expect? Then I am guessing, and I repeat guessing, that the Pro’s did in fact encroach and push their way into the Anti crowd.

Of course this is all speculation and I admit that it is. Will continue looking for more stuff.

I have also been told the MPI symposium on health care was quite good and choked full of good stuff. Will share when I can chase it all down.

JAC I can guarantee you THAT practice of displacing your opponents and diluting their concentrations is right out of the union handbook. Been there, done that (with my mother for CUPE) got the t-shirt before we even arrived.

I think the biggest reason the poll ratings are dropping is because during an election and just after there’s a lot of hype and excitement and feelings run rampant, but after some time people cool off and have a chance to see things more analytically. The high poll ratings were emotional.

I think people are horrified by the huge spending, by the takeover of GM, by the Cap and Trade, and even more by the health care bill. They wanted Washington cleaned up, not it’s power consolidated.

I think the fact that the right has gotten noisy for the first time since 1775 has a lot to do with it as well. Sure the media in the form of FOX and talk radio are noisy, but they actually always have been. I think it’s the regular people speaking out that has swayed and influenced the political middle.

Sometimes, a parent must put their child in a timeout, but this would not be construed as violence against the child. (Que jokes about a nanny state).

It is merely a matter of degree – you would enforce yourself upon the child if he refused.

Use of ‘child’ examples are always fraught with confusion – we should try to use proper examples.

Further, your assumption is taken to an illogical conclusion. It is tantamount to saying “I dislike war, therefore, I dislike death, therefore, killing is always wrong, therefore killing animals is also wrong, therefore, mistreating them is also wrong, therefore I must be a vegan.”

No.

The core principle that rationalizes war is the same as the use of violence upon the citizenry.

I dislike starting offensive wars. Therefore I dislike starting offensive wars. I do not see imposing regulations and laws on citizens as a similar application of offensive unjustified force.

The rationalization of ‘offensive’ war and imposing law upon citizens are the same, that is, the self-proclaimed and exclusive right to initiate violence.

Is Duct Tape a Gray area? If I just tape their mouth shut, and arms, so they will leave? Would that really be using force? They could waddle, stagger, slink off—-, into the sunset, there a happy ending for all.

… government is a compulsory territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and, implied in this, a compulsory territorial monopolist of taxation.

That is, a government is the ultimate arbiter, for the inhabitants of a given territory, regarding what is just and what is not, and it can determine unilaterally, i.e., without requiring the consent of those seeking justice or arbitration, the price that justice-seekers must pay to the government for providing this service.

….it follows that its agents will take advantage of their monopoly: they will increase taxes and reinterpret the law to their own advantage.

The price of justice will rise and its quality will fall.

In other words, government does indeed have an interest in making peace among its subjects, i.e., in preventing one subject from warring against and/or robbing another one, but only in order to rob all of its subjects more successfully itself.

Above, Mathius said the following as an example of the use of an imposition on another:

“Sometimes, a parent must put their child in a timeout, but this would not be construed as violence against the child.”

This is a misdirection rather than an argument as I covered the other day.

A child is demonstrably not prepared to make good decisions on their own without the guidance of their parents. Because of this, a time-out or other corrective measures may indeed be necessary to correct the actions of a child.

However, government attempts to treat ALL PEOPLE like they are children. The government asserts that it knows what is better for the people than the people do themselves. In the case of a war against another country which did not attack us, our government is telling the people of that other country, “we know what is best for you better than you yourself know it.”

There is a fatal flaw here. The government is made up of members of the people of the country. If the people of the country are children, then the people which comprise the government are likewise children. So, basically what you have is a bunch of kids attempting to tell a bunch of kids how to behave!

The problem is, the people that the government is attempting to control and tell how to behave are adults. Adults know how to behave without the intervention of the government. Just because the adults know how to behave IS NO GUARANTEE that they are ALL GOING TO BEHAVE, but the government cannot prevent the misbehavior of those that choose to misbehave.

It is natural for children to have rules within a household. Children require guidance so that they may learn to make sound decisions and live on their own without further guidance. If a parent does a crappy job of teaching this skill, you can (and do) end up with adults that are not very capable of making sound decisions. Simply because adults such as this exist is not an excuse for government.

Government makes no distinction between adults who are able to make sound decisions and adults who do not do a particularly good job of making sound decsions.

Some might even argue that the reason public shools are the way that they are is that the government is INTENTIONALLY NOT TEACHING CHILDREN THE ABILITY TO THINK, REASON, AND MAKE SOUND DECISIONS. This is how the government seeks to justify treating the population like children- by not letting them learn the critical skills needed to become successful adults!

All I know is that if I were China, I most certainly would not be buying US treasuries! That would be like intentionally buying a product from a company which you know to already be bankrupt, and then expecting that company to honor your warranty if something goes wrong after the company formally declared bankruptcy.

I suspect the Chinese are not delusional enough to do that anymore. They were for a while, but after you have been lied to enough times you either say, “thank you sir, may I please have another!” of the fog is lifted from your eyes and you relize that repeating an action which yeilded bad results and expecting good results the next time is by definition insane.

Why would anyone in their right mind buy from a treasury which contained no treasure???

Yes… that beautiful invisible treasure you have over on the shelf there… how much did you want for that? Oh, really? That’s quite a bargain! How generous of you! Do you have any more of this invisible treasure which I might purchase? I never realized the price was so REASONABLE!

China’s foreign investment fund is active in trying to purchase shares of various mining interests in Russia as we speak. The Russians are holding out currently for merely handing out long term contracts at current prices in exchange for massive investment by China. I was aware of such for a while as rumor with regard to potash and at a dinner with mining suppliers from Germany last Wednesday night got corroboration.

The Social Security “Trust Fund” contains nothing other than IOUs. That is, it does not contain money, it contains “special” Treasury Bonds that form part of the “public debt.”

How much? According to Treasury, about $4.3 trillion dollars worth.

But here’s the issue – those aren’t bonds or bills that the Social Security system can sell as it sees fit. They’re what are called “intragovernmental holdings”, with the key focus there being the last part of the first word: mental, which is what you have to be to do something like this.

Here’s the issue: Since these are not marketable securities the Social Security system cannot sell them to raise cash. It must instead “redeem” them with Treasury, forcing Treasury to cough up actual cash. This in turn requires Treasury to sell more bills or bonds to the public, since Treasury is operating with a deficit running (at present) more than $1.5 trillion dollars annually.

So the correct view of when Social Security (and Medicare!) is in trouble is not in 2037 or whatever, it is now, because the cash flow requirements are going to force the government to sell even more bonds to the public in order to pay supposedly-guaranteed “benefits.”

What happens when you sell bonds into a saturated market? Yields go up. Maybe a lot – which of course makes your interest payments go up. This can quickly turn into a self-reinforcing cycle that does critical damage to the federal budget. This can get rather interesting – fast.

That’s bad. Now let’s add the other two issues to the mix for the “worse.”

The course of human history is ultimately determined by ideas, whether they be true or false.</b.

There is no natural law that causes government, interstate war, imperialism, and finally world government.

Nor is there a natural law stating that a market-provided commodity money such as gold will be destroyed eventually and replaced by government produced fiat (paper) money.

These events and tendencies only occur and prevail if and as long as a majority of the public holds certain beliefs.

In particular, the public must believe in the Hobbesian myth and the myth that money constitutes part of social wealth (such that more money implies more wealth).

Once the public has grasped that government is a protection racket and a warmonger (rather than a protector and peacemaker), and that a central bank and government paper money are simply the government’s Department of Money-Counterfeiting and the instruments for continual redistribution of income and wealth in favor of the government and its friends, not only will we be spared the nightmare of world government and world paper money but we may actually see the restoration of the gold standard and the withering away of the state as a moral and economic perversity.

Well said and written as usual. I agree also with Mathius “its hard to swallow that some of these idiots out there have the same voting power I do”. The smart ones are moving away from him now that they know that he is just another potician when the rubber meets the road. IMHO I believe this would even fall further if some peoples IQ’s went up just ten points. I constantly read “It is the repubs fault health care reform isnt already passed”. When they are reminded that not a single solitary repub vote is needed they start spouting off in a language that has not been spoken on this planet since the ice age. There are those that will go down with the Obama ship and I admire their loyalty but when the water is in the wheelhouse at least start treading water instead of blaming the other party for the iceberg he just hit.

WE INTERRUPT TODAY’S REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING FOR THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL REPORT:

Mathius is new to the site and can be forgiven. Others of you may require 40 lashes with a wet noodle 🙂

DO NOT fall into the old trap of believing that the government IS what YOU WISH THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE. We have discussed this at lenghth before.

We WISH the government was completely benevolent, beneficial, peaceful, efficient, moral, honest, etc. etc. etc. and yet if we examine government, we see that it does a very poor job at being any of those things.

So, how do we make government become that which we wish it to be?

The ONLY way to make the government behave in the way you wish it would behave is TO EXERT A FORCE GREATER THAN THAT POSSESSED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF, thus forcing the government to conform to your wishes.

Now, please explain to me how it is possible to exert a force greater than that possessed by the government on the government?

Oh wait, you can’t do that! The government holds a monopoly on any force large enough to cause meaningful change to the government! WOOPS!

So, I guess we just have to HOPE that the government will suddenly start behaving in the ways that we want it to behave of its own volition.

There may be one way that the people can “force the government to comply”. While I know this may never be possible, but if every taxpayer decided not to work until they gave in, it would yield enough power to overtake them. remember, follow the money!!

OK Peter, new idea that is somewhat nonviolent. I thought about this, and decided it wouldn’t work as well, but would like to share anyway (as I thought it was funny, but ironic).

Let’s say a bunch of us kidnap Mathius, Ray, Chris and Todd and use them as hostages and ask for ransom (power over the government).

Not really violent, just a nice quiet come with us or die!

Here’s the answer that I envisioned from the government.

Government letter: Dear Sirs, My name is Ezekiel Emanuel. I have been tasked by the President to resolve this issue on behalf of the government. I have attached a “Life Valuation Chart” with this letter for your reference. As you can see by the chart provided, your demands would not be cost effective for the government to agree too, therefore we are denying your request. Please thank the four men for all their help in making this “Life Valuation Chart” part of everyday decision making here in Washington D.C.. We could not have done it without them. They will deemed heroes upon their return.

What happened to the post where Black Flag admitted that it was okay to give organ transplants to the highest bidder (e.g., a drug abusing rock star) instead of a person who is more likely to survive (e.g., a family man whose liver was destroyed by pollution at work)?

As usual Chris stumbles.

Chris, the organ is not mine to give. I do not own it.

I understand that you want to steal it from the owner, and give it to someone you thing “deserves it”. But that is theft.

I know you have a hard time with freedom. You want it, but you do not want others to have it.

It is not a matter of giving the organ to the highest bidder, it is a matter of giving the organ to the person who is willing to pay the demanded price for the service rendered.

If the poor guy whose liver was destroyed by pollution doesn’t have the necessary scratch for the operation, I am sure that his family and friends can hold a fundraiser for him, and if everyone in town agrees that he is such a great guy, I am sure they will have no issue with raising the money needed… we see stories like this on the news all the time!

You’re falling into the same trap again. Just because the system as implemented is flawed, does not mean that the idea should be done away with.

The system is flawed from its core – it does not matter how it is implemented.

Have you not reviewed history? 10,000 years of ‘trying’ government – 100% of them have ended in tyranny.

The core flaw is in the believe that someone has the right to initiate force on others.

As long as the core flaw exists, it matters not how anything is implemented – it will always end up in tyranny.

I said this yesterday, I think, but it bears repeating: Without taxes, I trust you to give to charity, I give to charity, I think a lot of people here would. But Pete seems a little shifty. I’m not so convinced he would.

And why do you care?

It is not your money, it is his money.

The moment you believe you have a right to determine what he does with his money, is the day the seeds of tyranny are planted.

If you believe you have a right to take his money, everyone else gets the right to take your money.

The charity approach sounds great, but it doesn’t work in practice.

Freedom is always the best practice

All you are saying is that you do not want other people to be free. You demand that they give you their money which you did not earn.

Also, you can’t get unemployment benefits if you aren’t looking for work. You are required to go on a certain number of interviews and apply for a certain number of jobs every week. And they do check. I know this because I was laid off in December and applied. I was ineligible because I had a severance but I still learned a good deal about the system. Plus benefits only last so long. So these people aren’t just collecting benefits indefinitely without strings. It’s a safety net.

Stealing from someone for another’s unearned benefit is evil, regardless of how cute the justification may be.

If you can justify theft from me, believe me, I can justify stealing from you~!

Does it work perfectly? No. Do some people abuse it? Absolutely. Does that mean we should scrap it? Absolutely not.

Absolutely yes.

It is theft – the taking from someone to give to another who did not earn is evil. It matters not how “pretty” or “good” you may believe the cause may be, theft is evil and justifying theft -if it is systemic- will destroy civilization.

The problem, and you hit the nail on the head, is how to make the government comply with my definition of who is eligible. Just because I don’t have the answer to that doesn’t mean that the underlying concept is flawed, just its execution

As you have highlighted, the underlying concept is evil.Evil begets evil – nothing good can come of it.

Thou shall not steal. It does not say “Thou shall not steal except by majority vote”.

1. FDR saved capitalism from itself.
2. It is better to have a little inflation than a depression.
3. Deficits don’t matter.
4. We owe it to ourselves.
5. Society’s great complexity requires government planning.
6. If the government did not take action, poor people would starve.
7. Society needs a government-supplied safety net.
8. The U.S. Supreme Court has the final say.
9. The solution is more education.
10. Everybody deserves. . . .
11. Everyone should pay his fair share.
12. Criminals should pay their debt to society.
13. There oughta be a law…..

Not one of these is true.

Yeat, all are either actively promoted by the public or at least grudgingly accepted.

I have to say something in you above post. If you are talking about unemployment benefits, and say that is evil or stealing from another, then my question for you is.

If you lose your job, and seriously can’t find another one for a period of time, then why is receiving unemployment benefits considered evil or stealing? How are you suppose to survive without some kind of help? Isn’t that getting subsidies from the government? Yes, I know you think they are evil, and always will. Where do you get that idea that is stealing from another?

Suppose you lost your job, and you don’t have any other means of support, what would you do?

Flag, Like to add something here. Unemployment inOhio is called insurance, as employers pay into this fund. When one of my employees gets canned for being stupid, and applies for “unemployment insurance benefits” the employer can deny the claim. An appeal can be requested, and then the unemployment commission makes the final say.

I’m not up on how the employer is or is not required to pay into this, but I’m sure there are tax dollars involved at some point (like lately).

So, I guess that years ago when I lost a job, and was receiving benefits, I was stealing in your eyes. How come you seem to be the only one here who thinks that way? Or, am I wrong, and there are others who think the way you do, and I just didn’t pay attention to it.?

Isn’t that what you pay taxes for? Don’t you think that those benefits could be considered charity?

So, I guess that years ago when I lost a job, and was receiving benefits, I was stealing in your eyes.

No. The State stole the funds. You do not have the power to tax. The government took the money.

You were a benefactor of the loot.

How come you seem to be the only one here who thinks that way?

A long time ago, as you know, I measured all paradigms of society against a moral core premise. Many of them failed.

Most people do not do this – they accept blindly the dictates of authority to determine what is right or wrong. They believe it without test or proof.

It is forgivable because we are trained to do this from babes and even when a few are able to break out of this perpetual fog, they do not have the time to go through all these paradigms to find which ones are moral and which ones are evil.

I did. As I related a in the co-Guest Post with JAC and USWep, “I am Black Flag” – I was horrified by the contradictions of my life against my principles. The justification of those contradictions had put me to a place, that by a mere accident, saved the lives of countless innocent people from my devastation upon them. I would have, willingly by a perverted concept of ‘duty’ slaughtered them all had not a small twist of fate occurred.

That potential utterly shocked me through my soul. I vowed never to live in such a horrific fog again.

Or, am I wrong, and there are others who think the way you do, and I just didn’t pay attention to it.?

Isn’t that what you pay taxes for? Don’t you think that those benefits could be considered charity?

Without the government safety net, most rational people would save up a rainy-day fund for themselves. They could also voluntarily purchase unemployment insurance, which could pay out the same benefits as the current government program but without requiring forcibly stealing money from others who are, for example, self-employed and don’t want or need such insurance. As a last resort, rely on charities and family to provide temporary relief – your personal safety net.

Okay, I think I regret asking those questions now. I feel like I’m being bombarded here. I was merely asking basically hypothetically anyway. Although I did receive benefits for about 3 months before I found another job. So, am I going to get smacked with a wet noodle for doing that?

Sorry, Judy, hadn’t seen the other responses while I was reading the 250+ comments and typing my own. 😉

I was mostly trying to answer the last question in your post, as to what alternatives could be used if the government program did not exist. The fact that said program does exist, causes most people to rely on it to the exclusion of any alternatives at all.

Unlike BF, I don’t really consider it to be “stealing” or “wrong” if you make use of government benefits for which you’ve been paying with your taxes. Just recognize that inevitably some are [b]being forced to pay[/b] more than they receive in order to give money/benefits to those who pay little to nothing at all – thus, “stealing”.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.

It will be printed….which will lead to uncontrolled inflation….which will lead to devaluation….which will lead to more printing and then we will be eating bananas and selling trinkets by the sea shore.

We will watch China and India and Mexico pollute the world. (They already out pollute us 14 to 1 according to the world of Al Gore).

Just got this off of Fox. It explains about tea parties set for Saturday for those who are against Obamacare.

_________________________________________________________________

If Democratic lawmakers thought all the furor over President Obama’s health care plan expressed this month at town hall meetings was dying down, they might be in for a surprise Saturday.

That’s when citizens are planning anti-“Obamacare” rallies across the country Saturday in all 435 congressional districts.

And their message is clear: We will not stand for socialized, government-controlled health care.

The same groups who made the “tax tea parties” possible in April are behind this weekend’s movement. American Liberty Alliance, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity are working with The Sam Adams Alliance, among others, to stage the rallies.

Click here for more information on the rallies.

They come as town hall clashes between Democratic lawmakers and protesters of Obama’s health care plan have captured national attention. Some Democrats have dismissed those protesters as “mobs” organized by special interests. But many protesters have said they attended the town halls out of genuine concern.

Now they can express their concerns at Saturday’s rallies.

“Obviously the idea behind this was to have a unified day for those concerned about government-controlled health care to talk outside their representatives’ offices,” said Paul Miller, spokesman for The Sam Adams Alliance, a Chicago-based political organization which is one of several groups promoting the event through new media.

Miller said this is a personal issue for many opponents, including himself, a 22-year cancer survivor. Miller, who was diagnosed with a rare cancer at the age of 14 and had his right arm amputated to save his life, says he would not have received the same specialized and speedy medical care if the government was in control.

“There isn’t this great conspiracy to say there shouldn’t be health care reform,” Miller told FOXNews.com. “People just want to make their own decisions and keep their insurance if they like. When government’s get involved, they never do anything right.”

Eric Odom, executive director for American Liberty Alliance, the lead group behind the tea parties and the new rallies told FOXNews.com that the rallies differ from the tea parties in that they are being organized from the bottom up.

“We didn’t want to try and do what we did on April 15 because the logistics was a nightmare,” he said, explaining that local organizers now have more control over the rallies and have only received basic information from the top.

“People at the local level have taken it and created their own animal with it,” he said. “This is more bottom heavy.”

Odom shrugged at the fact that most of the lawmakers won’t be present at their offices on a Saturday because he said the ultimate goal is to get more people politically engaged.

“This Saturday is symbolic,” he said, adding that his group will e-mail information to rally-goers on how to air their concerns to their representatives. “Most of these people have never done anything political in their lives.”

Phil Kerpen, director of policy for Americans for Prosperity, cautioned that it’s “impossible to predict” the turnout at these rallies “because it’s very decentralized.”

“It could be another big success,” he said, or the crowds could be scaled back. Kerpen said the packed town halls this month don’t provide much indication either.

“I think there’s no better place to make your voice heard and make an impact when you get face to face with your congressman,” he said. “The impetus is greater to show up there than here.”

Jacki Schechner, spokeswoman for Health Care for America Now (HCAN), a coalition of groups supporting Obama’s health care plan, said the rallies are a waste of time.

“There is no government-controlled health care on the table,” she said. “They’re protesting something that doesn’t exist.

“There’s a lot of people out there feeding lies and misinformation and trying to get people hyped up about something that doesn’t exist. They’re wasting their energy.”

Odom found irony in the objections raised by proponents of health care reform.

“It’s interesting that the world’s most professional organizers are upset that we’re organizing communities,” he said.

But Odom said he hasn’t gotten a lot of pushback.

“Surprisingly, I don’t think they take this very seriously,” he said. But he said what separates his organizers from many of Obama’s supporters, including Health Care for America Now (HCAN), is the passion.

“For them it’s business as usual. It’s what they’re paid to do,” he said.

Schechner said the differences between the two sides goes beyond money.

“We didn’t pop up over night,” she said, noting that the group’s campaign began last summer. “We don’t scream. We’re not angry.”

She rejected the notion that community organizers who are paid lack passion. “There are different kinds of passion,” she said.

Schechner added, “I don’t discount their passion. I don’t ever want to undermine their passion. But I really wish they would take a moment to really understand what this legislation is about, because a lot of people would be helped by it.”

But Kerpen said it’s clear that Obama’s plan would lead to a government takeover.

“Read the legislation that’s been proposed,” he said, adding that the House bill has been “designed as an achievable way to reach a single-payer system,” in which the government acts as the sole middle man with greater leverage to negotiate prices. “A lot of people are playing games, as we would expect them to.”

Mathius
To get a jump on Monday.
“1. I had sex at 13 and seem to be ok. Some might argue this, so maybe you
have a point…”

Humor is always appreciated.

“2. There are two options for morality in light of religion: either God created morality, in which case it is intrinsic to his laws, but not bound by logic, or it is bound by logic and endorsed by Him. If option one, you confirm that God is arbitrary. If option two, you must prove your case based on logic alone. Choose wisely. “

Actually, I don’t believe I have to agree with either of your options, just because it is intrinsic to God’s laws does not mean it isn’t logical. Of course whether or not you personally believe God’s law is logical is certainly up to you

“For me, I believe that morality is independent of faith. As such, if you say “sex is immoral in certain circumstances,” I think you should be able to build a sound logical case.”

I believe that most people have a moral code, where that moral code originated is another conversation, but using logic is a good thing, although someones ability to debate isn’t necessarily proof positive that they are right.

“Finally, before I bid you all a happy weekend, I contend that there is nothing “common” in your beliefs. Only half the country thinks the way you do on this subject, so I would submit that if one, then the other, else neither.”

Eddie Van Halen is a heavy metal guitarist in I think his own band, called Van Halen. He was also married to Valerie Bertanelli from that TV show, oh heck, I can’t remember the name of it. Look him up on Google, you’ll learn a lot more about him.

“Actually, I don’t believe I have to agree with either of your options, just because it is intrinsic to God’s laws does not mean it isn’t logical. Of course whether or not you personally believe God’s law is logical is certainly up to you”

I really stated that badly-If one states that God created morality and morality is the essential nature of his laws, his laws based on morality cannot be illogical

G-man playing the race card, like name-calling, is the last resort of a weak argument. All that’s left is to add the Jews manipulation of Whitey from their ivory towers atop the banks and the rant is complete. It might not be a funny issue but I can’t help laughing at how Hollywood its all playing out. The overacting is going to be legendary stuff in 100 years and I can see it playing over and over to the caption “it replaced the sitcom”.

wallet smallAn energy analyst says he cannot understand why the Obama administration is borrowing money to lend money to Brazil so it can conduct oil drilling off its eastern coast, yet will not support oil drilling in American waters.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Obama administration has agreed to lend $2 billion to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance oil exploration off the country’s coast near Rio de Janeiro. The U.S. Export-Import Bank has issued a “preliminary commitment” of $2 billion to Petrobras, but may loan more. Earlier this month, a Brazilian official said the U.S. could provide up to $10 billion for the drilling project.

David Kreutzer is senior policy analyst in energy economics and climate change at The Heritage Foundation. He questions why the United States is not drilling in its own deep-water oil fields.

David Kreutzer (Heritage)”Why aren’t we getting oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?” he wonders. “There are tens of billions of barrels of petroleum that we could get in our own water, and even onshore, that have been blocked by people in Washington; and here we’re lending money to people in Brazil to get oil — it does seem silly, and I can’t explain the thinking.”

Kreutzer says U.S. opposition to drilling in its own oil fields is stupid in its own right, but that giving money to state-run oil companies to drill in foreign oil fields is more silly — especially given the fact that the Obama administration’s “cap-and-trade” policy seeks to limit America’s use of petroleum and other fossil-based energies.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg.com is reporting that George Soros, a major contributor to the Democratic Party, is also a major investor in the Brazilian oil company. According to that report, he recently repositioned himself in that investment by trading his common stocks for preferred stocks, which offer a larger dividend.

It’s better to use up the rest world’s oil supply before using up our own. In the end, the only oil left on earth will be in north america. It’ll be exclusively ours and will bring a hefty profit to the NAU someday. Get it Mr. Kreutzer?

Just got back about two hours ago, so I have about three or four days of reading to catch up on.

About this article . . . Barack Hussein Obama needs to take a lesson from the old testament; Even J.C. got crucified, so if you think you are a “Messiah” you had better get ready for a few well placed nails.

AFTER ALL THIS HAS HAPPENED, I FEEL LIKE A FOOL, I LIKED FDR, WAS IN MILITARY DURING WW2, U.S. MARINE CORPS. AND THOUGHT I WAS HELPING MY COUNTRY, BUT ALL OF THESE BILDERBERGS, ROCKEFELLER, GEITHNER, ALL AT THE LATEST MEETING, EVEN SEIBUS, THE HEALTH SEC. BUT MY ONE COMMENT I WILL SAY, SMASH THE HEAD OF THE SNAKE THAT IS STRANGLING AMERICA, WHEN IT IS GONE THE REST WILL UNCOIL AND LIFE MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE TO GET BACK TO NORMAL. I AM NOT ADVOCATING VIOLENCE, I AM TRYING TO SAY ELECTION RIGGED, ACORN. ALSO I SAW ADS ON TV OF GIGGLING HIGH SCHOOL BLACK GIRLS, WHO SAID “HE IS BLACK AS WE ARE, SO WE WILL VOTE FOR HIM” I HAVE A SMALL SUGGESTION, AGE OF VOTERS IN MILITARY TO STAY 18, THEY GIVE UP LIFE TO PROTECT US, ANYBODY OUTSIDE MILITARY 21 AGAIN, MAYBE IN 3 YEARS THEY MIGHT VOTE FOR WHAT MARTIN LUTHER KING SAID, JUDGE A PERSON BY HIS/HER CHARACTER NOT BY COLOR OF SKIN. THAT IS WHY I VOTED FOR MCCAIN, HE WAS A VETERAN, OBAMA VETERAN OF ONLY COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AND CHICAGO POLITICS, I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A PERSONS COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE WITH ME, BUT HIS DEATH PANEL WILL PROBABLY KILL ME, AS 85. GOD BLESS ALL ON SITE, ALSO GOD PLEASE, PLEASE BLESS AMERICA, WE REALLY NEED YOU NOW. OBEY GOD, LEAVE ALL CONEQUENCES TO HIM. THANK YOU goldie